Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Michaeladams
Post Volume: Total: 919,032 Year: 6,289/9,624 Month: 137/240 Week: 80/72 Day: 2/3 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Natural Selection.
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 63 of 243 (347961)
09-10-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
09-09-2006 6:59 PM


Natural selection favors the stronger over the weaker in most cases
No, as has been pointed out, NS favors those organisms most fit for their environment.
Besides, I don't see how homosexuality fits into a "Strong vs Weak" scenario.
So if homosexuals don't have a prediliction to pass on genes then they are an evolutionary dead end, no?
Not if the trait is neutral and naturally reoccuring. Assuming homosexuality is genetic, I would guess that the cause is (as holmes posited) a certain combination of genes that randomly occurs in the population and isn't necessarily "passed on." In this case, NS doesn't affect the trait because it is both neutral and mostly uninheritable (although the combination could occur more often in certain populations and/or families).
You also seem to be assuming two things. One: that homosexuals never reproduce or that they can't except through heterosexual sex acts. You seem to either be ignorant of or just forgetting about the many ways this can happen. Some people choose to live a "straight" life, whether it be an "ex-gay" couple, a gay man/lesbian who lives in an area where s/he could be killed for being openly gay, or even those who, like my aunt and uncle, choose to marry a gay or stright friend for the sole purpose of procreation (the marriage is for the perceived benefit to the kids, otherwise they'd just screw). You also have random sperm and ova donation and receiving, plus the many, many gay men/lesbians who donate their sperm/wombs to their gay friends (and some straight men and women donate to them, too!).
Two: that pending the end of the species (or the hypothetical island scenario) gay men and lesbians would not just suck it up and have sex in order not to go extinct. It also would not change their nature or even their inclinations. Just because a homosexual has sex with someone of the opposite gender does not mean that their membership is automatically revoked
As well, to even make this argument that siblings pick up for their gay bro/sis, you'd have to quantify how many homosexuals have any siblings at all. You'd also have to to quantfiy how many heterosexuals have siblings and also find out how fertile they are
You would not have to show this at all. That theory would not hinge upon how many fertile siblings each individual homosexual has because all that would need to be shown is that the nieces and nephews of those that do have siblings receive some sort of advantage from the relationship.
I'm not confusing anything. This is very simple logic. If it was just about merely 'feeling good,' just about anything could satisfy some baser appetite, so why go out of one's way to find someone of the same sex if just about feeling good?.
I'm not sure how you can see having sex with someone of the same sex entails "going out of one's way?" If you have sexual urges for someone of the same sex there are plenty of people out there who can satisfy you (twice as many if you're bi! ). You also seem to be equating "feeling good" with sex with anyone. Obviously, it doesn't feel as good to me to have sex with a man as with a woman. Also, some women make me feel "better" than others. Sure, there are some people (of all sexualities) who will fuck pretty much anything that moves and "feel good" but most people are somewhat picky and that's where the different urges come in.
Anyways, your original argument was:
it (homosexuals helping siblings pass on genes) still does nothing to explain why they have sexual urges, if most evolutionists claim that the sole reason for sex is to proliferate
Explanation of "it" in italics not in original post.
"Evolutionists" claim nothing of the sort. The sole mechanism through which sexually reproducing organisms reproduce is heterosexual sex. The sexual urges definitely have a role in this process, but are independent of procreation itself.
If someone claims they are gay they are claiming that they have no sexual desire for the opposite sex. If that desire doesn't exist because of genetics, then by the terms of natural selection, they are the weaker forms of humanity because they will have no desire to perpetuate.
I still don't get the whole "weaker" argument.
You are equating desire with ability. Do you feel that celibate people are "weaker?" How about asexuals? People who choose not to reproduce for fear of passing on a horrible genetic disease?
How about those with the desire, but not the ability? Are they "weak," too?
To overcome this they have to go against their own expressed nature
At this stage, there is nothing to "overcome." When the extinction of the species is nigh, I'll let ya know how I feel about having sex with men. I'm sure I'll be more than cooperative (as long as I still get to have a girlfriend ), but it apparently will be alot to overcome.
Edited by Jaderis, : fixed sloppy sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2006 6:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by CDarwin, posted 09-11-2006 9:19 PM Jaderis has not replied
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 2:53 AM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 119 of 243 (354948)
10-07-2006 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 2:53 AM


In terms of pure selection on the genetic level, the rules don't apply. My reason for mentioning it is because the most coveted notariety an organism can achieve, as it pertains to evolution, is survivability and gene selection. So, if nature actually removes the desire of procreation by removing the desire to copulate with members of the opposite sex, isn't that the lowest form nature could derive? I mean, think about it objectively for a moment. For those who are imbued by a meaningless universe and who only find reason in simple terms of survival/death, weak/strong, the homosexual is an evolutionary dead end. I don't see any way of getting around that point.
Well, for starters, you can get around that point by recognizing that humans have a cultural and sociological development beyond all that we have seen (or understand, I should say) from the non-human animals. I will grant you that with regards to non-human animals an exclusive non-desire to engage in sexual activity with the opposite sex would most likely make that individual "weaker."
Beyond that, your premise that homosexual humans have no desire to procreate simply because they have no desire to "copulate with members of the opposite sex" is completely unsupported. Contrary to the beliefs of some, sex and procreation are not exclusively one and the same.
I find it that one's social acceptance of homosexuality is directly contravened by the naturalistic worldview. The two cannot coexist under both pretenses as they are incompatible.
Supposing that you even have the slightest comprehension of what the "naturalistic worldview" entails, how would you suppose that it is incompatible with social acceptance of homosexuals. The ability to pass one's genes on to the next generation holds no moral, societal or ethical significance to "naturalists."
We are not trying to make up some excuse for accepting homosexuals because we (and I hope I am not speaking too broadly) do not find anything inherently wrong with them (me).
Riddle me this: If nature removes the desire to pass on their genes then the homosexual will die genetically, right?
Yes, if the desire to procreate was completely and in every way expunged from the individual then their particular genes and other unique mutations would not be passed on except through (possibly) their siblings/relatives. However, this doesn't seem to be the case because many homosexuals DO have the desire and the ability to have children.
Its not that they are physically any less fit. I don't suggest that or believe that at all.
No one else has suggested that, to my knowledge, on this thread. I have never taken the term "weaker" to have any correlation with my own personal well-being. I don't know why you brought it up.
But if nature stymies ones will to procreate effectively, which, I think, everyone here could agree that so much evolutionary emphasis is on procreation, what does that say about the homosexual? Are they not a dead end, solely from an evolutionary standpoint?
Yes, but you are, again, confusing the desire and ability to procreate with the non-desire to have heterosexual sex.
Some have said, "but they can procreate." Yes, I'm aware that they can physically procreate. But if nature gives us predilictions and penchants towards sexual attraction of the same sex, what purpose does it serve to try and override those emotions by procreating with a member of the opposite sex?
Because my (and many others') "emotions" towards the same sex do not supplant the desire (whether it be biological, cultural or what have you) to have children. In the past, some have entered into "marriages of convenience," or simply had wanton heterosexual sex in order to have children, but now, we have many technologies that can help us to fulfill that desire (for both homo- and heterosexuals).
Why supplant what nature has done? If homosexaulity is as natural as being born with green eyes, why try to go against the grain?
Do you ask this question to people who get colored contacts? Nature, at least for humans, is simply the starting point. Culture, individuality, and all various societal influences play a HUGE part in our development and being.
If nature gives the desire for water by creating thirst, why try and go against that? If nature gives us the desire for food by designing hunger pangs, why go against that nature?
But people do this all the time. Have you never heard of fasting?
Seriously, though, why are you so concerned about going against nature? I know most "naturalists" are not, so if you are trying to play devil's advocate (WRT to your side) here, it is not working since you are taking up a caricatured version of the opposing side.
Uh-huh, but where does nature fit into this? This doesn't strike you as odd and unnatural?
Only as "odd and unnatural" as in-vitro fertilization is. Or sperm or egg donation for heterosexual couples. I really don't see the problem.
Yes, I understand that, but we are speaking about nature and why nature would even develop homosexuality.
There is no "why." We can look at the possible effects of it or try to find some correlation to other factors, but there is no "why" when it comes to evolution. It just happens. You are the one trying to equate some kind of higher ramifications with homosexuality.
Nature favors the strong and opposes the weak. There must be some underlying purpose for nature causing the actuality of homosexuality.
No. No purpose at all. It happened. If genes are responsible for homosexuality and they never get passed on, then so be it. I certainly don't care. I'm sure "nature" doesn't care, either.
However, it just so happens, that it (if it is genetic) seems to be passed on. Therefore, scientists, biological and social, are working on an explanation for HOW, not why.
If there isn't, then it was invented by man as just another thought to satisfy their salacious desires.
Yes, yes, of course. If not one, then it has to be the other. No room for any inbetween (besides the fact that you, again, attributed purpose to nature and therefore created a strawman argument).
And what are some of the social ramifications? Couldn't the pederast simply say that it was nature that made him desire children sexually? Can't the zoophile say that nature made him desire animals from another taxon with the same amount of conviction as the homosexual to feel justified in ones' actions?
Ahhh...I was wondering when the slippery slope would come into play in this thread. These arguments will invariably lead us into an OT discussion. I recall a few recent threads that deal more directly with the "social ramifications" of homosexuality and I will be happy to discuss these with you there (if they are not still open I will propose a new topic).
Its not an argument at all worth defending, IMO. If homosexuality is natures way of abating the population, but sis is spittin' out the same amount of kids for gay brother, then the exponent growth of the population is the same, in which case, you're still left pondering why nature ever experimented with homosexuality to begin with. It makes no sense.
Of course, it makes no sense because I haven't seen anyone propose that homosexuality is "nature's way of abating the population" or that homosexuality is some sort of natural experiment in this thread. Not to say that the argument has never been put forward by anyone, ever (and it seems to be most often put forward by some gays who feel they have to justify their existence somehow in the face of hatred, myself included in my youth), but it doesn't seem to be a strongly held belief among homosexuals (and I should know...I go to all the meetings! ). But, again, no one here has posited that because that would imply that nature has some sort of higher purpose for us.
You misunderstood my point. Many, if not most, of the evo's on EvC take the stance that survivability and procreation are pretty much two facets of life that are the pinnacle of any organism. Where then does homosexuality fit in the picture if, for them, its all about how it 'feels good' or 'feels right' when they are with a member of the same sex?
No, you misunderstood my reply to your point. You implied that having sex with someone of the same sex would entail "going out of one's way" and I answered accordingly. I said it really isn't that hard. I said nothing about how my "feeling good" while fucking a woman inhibits me from fucking a man (or getting a sperm donation) in order to procreate.
If nature removes your desire to procreate, i.e., pass on your genes, then are't you an evolutionary dead end? I view people as having more value than being merely sperm receptacles and I see life as a bit more precious than this, but unfortuantely, most evo's believe that life is basically meaningless, and the only real measure of life is how succesful you are by living the longest and passing on the most genes. That, to them, is the measure of success, biologically speaking. Where then does the homosexual fit into those parameters?
That is the measure of "success" BIOLOGICALLY. You, again, seem to forget that humans have a life beyond simple biology. Discussing biological and evolutionary "success" in humans is the same as discussing the biological and evolutionary "success" of antelope or algae.
You seem to read that view of success as the only way that evolutionary scientists portray all of human existence and that is a false view and you know it (and if you don't then you were sorely lied to by your preacher).
No, I do not, because I don't see the measure of one's self in procreation. That's probably because, one, I'm not an evolutionist, and two, I believe there is a higher purpose than a cosmic accident.
Well, I think the "accident" is the miracle. "What are the odds," right? And I view my current life as having purpose. Not just the one after this.
Well, I think its more Malthusian conspiracy than it will be a problem that materializes any time soon.
Your reference to Malthus would make more sense if anyone actually believed that homosexuality had anything to do with population rates.
Edited by Jaderis, : fixed a couple typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 2:53 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 4:37 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 150 of 243 (414144)
08-02-2007 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by pelican
08-02-2007 9:00 PM


Re: bull shit
I have never heard such a load of crap in my life. Are there any gays on this forum? Does anyone know a gay personally? These so labelled people are remarkably human. This discussion is highly offensive in debating human beings as though they are some mutation. Have a look at yourselves!
I appreciate your sticking up for gay people, but aside from some of the typical homo-hating comments, I don't see anything wrong with discussing the possible genetics ("some mutation") of homosexuality and its possible role in human evolution.
Would you be so offended if we were discussing red-heads or sickle-cell anemia? I doubt it.
Please, by all means, be offended by the more classless remarks you may find in this thread, but don't be offended by a scientific discussion about homosexuality. As a gay woman I find it quite interesting and not offensive in the least.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by pelican, posted 08-02-2007 9:00 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by pelican, posted 08-02-2007 11:54 PM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 154 of 243 (414159)
08-03-2007 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by pelican
08-02-2007 11:54 PM


Re: bull shit
The whole tone of the discussion is demeaning by implying there is something wrong or there is a defect. Bullshit!
I don't understand. Are you associating a negative connotation to the word "mutation?" Speculating about a possible role of a (speculative) homosexuality gene(s) in natural selection is not demeaning. I think you may have gotten the impression that some people were trying to defend homosexuality by proving some kind of "benefit," implying that there is something wrong. I can see how you might think that, but I assure you that was not the over-arching theme of this debate.
There is no more need of a scientific discussion on homosexuality than there is for people with red hair.
Sure there is! Knowing the evolutionary route of a gene or set of genes is highly fascinating to a lot of people. A beneficial aspect of having red hair (and the traits that usually accompany it like pale skin) is that in cold climates where there is not as much sunlight for half of the year the body is able to absorb more sunlight and hence more Vitamin D preventing rickets. See, that wasn't offensive at all and people actually learned something!
What determines who any of us are? Not our sexual desires or choice of partner that's for sure. Do any of us choose to be who we are? I didn't choose my gendre or orientation. I just am and so is everyone else.
True and I'm glad you feel that way, however, trying to figure out the genetics and the role or effect that this particular mutation may have has nothing to do with what you just said...well, except for maybe proving that it is natural and not a choice. Not that it matters either way.
As a 'gay' woman maybe your need to be accepted allows this kind of scrutiny.
I doubt anyone here would say that I "feel the need to be acepted" or am at all ashamed by my sexuality by the posts I make.
On the contrary. If I was uncomfortable with who I am I would probably be more defensive, jumping on any perceived slight and shouting down any discussion at all about the topic. You will find if you read my posts that I have never hidden my sexuality nor have I grovelled at the feet of those who disagree with me just to fit in.
If I was a person in a same sex relationship (which is all it amounts to)I would say, "UP YOURS"
I have done so many times in my life and a couple of times on this board, but only when someone was actually being offensive.
I am mature enough to pick my battles well (most of the time), but I DO stand up to trollish offensive comments.
I do not, however, consider a discussion about the role of homosexuality in natural selection to be offensive in the slightest. I'm sorry that you do
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.
Edited by Jaderis, : fixed quote

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by pelican, posted 08-02-2007 11:54 PM pelican has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 155 of 243 (414160)
08-03-2007 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Nuggin
08-03-2007 12:13 AM


Re: Non-genetic, but gay from birth nonetheless
Some women are essentially allergic to testosterone. As they produce male children, their body builds up defenses against the testosterone. The more male children she has, the more the defenses are built up, resulting in the trend for increasing chance of homosexuality among subsequent generations.
Hmmm...I wonder if the increasing chance for a male homosexual child would mean a decreasing chance for a female homosexual child (providing that testosterone levels in utero have something to do with lesbianism)?

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Nuggin, posted 08-03-2007 12:13 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by pelican, posted 08-03-2007 1:11 AM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 157 of 243 (414163)
08-03-2007 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by pelican
08-03-2007 1:11 AM


Re: Non-genetic, but gay from birth nonetheless
The whole tone of examining homosexuality as though it is NOT NORMAL is my point. You are normal. I am normal. We are human beings! There is no need for a scientific analysis of normal.
What is the reason for this line of enquiry?
So by your logic Mendel should have never tried to figure out the inheritance of traits? It's a big waste of time to try and track the genetic history of groups of people or just people in general? We shouldn't bother trying to understand the role of sexual selection in evolution or the evolution of altruism? We should just say "Hey, neat! Red Hair!" and get on with our lives? Because these things are "normal" and not worth understanding?
I, for one, would like to understand MY particular genetic history. It matters not one whit to me if my being a lesbian is genetic, but it sure would be interesting to find out! And to find out how this trait is passed along and why. I attach no feeling to it. It is simply intellectual curiousity.
You are reading a nefarious purpose into the topic that simply is not there. Yes, some of the posts by certain individuals carry negativity with them, but the topic itself is completely benign!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by pelican, posted 08-03-2007 1:11 AM pelican has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 174 of 243 (414437)
08-04-2007 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by pelican
08-03-2007 6:01 AM


Re: bull shit
[/qs]I did spit the dummy a little and I apologise if I have offended anyone. I tend to get a bee in my bonnet when my children are concerned. A lioness protecting her cubs interests.[/qs]
Funny. My mom once told me that the only thing that really changed for her after I came out was that she felt much more on the defensive when people made ignorant or hateful comments. That really blew me away. I am still in awe of that statement.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by pelican, posted 08-03-2007 6:01 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by pelican, posted 08-04-2007 8:30 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 204 of 243 (414750)
08-06-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by anastasia
08-05-2007 11:39 PM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
I don't think I articulated the question quite right. I think what I am saying is that humans are the only species that can 'choose' whether to parent or not to parent, regardless of 'desire' to parent, and based on externals like finance, age, etc. If both sex drive, and parenting desire are present in homosexuals, NS would not care if the person CHOSE not to parent.
That's an interesting way to look at it.
I'm more convinced that homosexuality is caused more by both maternal and fetal hormone levels, but an argument could still be made that in the case of fetal hormones a gene or genes would be responsible for the hormone levels.
Anyway, back to your point. No matter how you put it, NOT reproducing means that your unique genes are not passed on. That said, the arguments put forth in this thread speak to the possibility of the genes (if any) for homosexuality being familially attached to other genes, such a gene (if any) for female fecundity, that would aid in the passage of the familial genes to the next generation.
Of course, homosexuals reproduce all the time and have probably done so throughout history so the passing of individual genes is not actually a problem. The "gay uncle" scenario would only be significant if homosexuals could not/did not reproduce or in the cases we see in non-human animals making exclusively homosexual pair bonds.
In light of this, your idea makes a lot of sense. The mechanism of natural selection does not have forethought and couldn't act on the future choices of an individual. The gene (if any) would only drop out of the population if no homosexual ever reproduced again, provided that it is not a "rider" on another gene or recessive.
I know I went all over the place with this. I'm still pondering it.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by anastasia, posted 08-05-2007 11:39 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2007 1:26 AM Jaderis has replied
 Message 212 by anastasia, posted 08-06-2007 12:31 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 207 of 243 (414755)
08-06-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by NosyNed
08-06-2007 1:26 AM


Re: The forgotten X Y
It is easy to forget that there are X and Y chromosomes. There can be, apparently, selective pressures on these that are in competition to a degree.
Oh, I haven't forgotten about it. Just didn't mention it
For example, there may be an X gene that produces greater female fecundity (I don't know but it seems it could arise and if it positive selection on this seems likely). If this also slightly increased the chances of males carrying that gene on their X being homosexual then, as discussed upthread, there might be a negative selection on it. However, we now have an obvious numbers game. What is the net selection on that gene?
This "competition" would also apply to genes that are passed down in sets (the "riders" I mentioned. I don't know the proper term for this). Not to throw any kind of positive or negative connotations into the mix, but the gene(s) for homosexuality could come in tandem with other "beneficial" genes. And as ana pointed out, since homosexuals usually have a sex drive and the ability/desire to reproduce the genes may not be selected against (at least not enough to erase them from the population).
In the case of female fecundity, I would have to say that the net gain would be positive overall. I base that on absolutely no evidence, of course, because this is a hypothetical situation, but I think we can safely say that the prevalence of homosexuality and especially of non-reproducing homosexuals is not statistically significant enough to offset the supposed fecundity of their female relatives.
And of course, this is all revolving around gay man. We haven't even really discussed as strong of a hypothetical case for lesbians. I don't think much research is out there, tho. Typical

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2007 1:26 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3622 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 233 of 243 (414932)
08-07-2007 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Hyroglyphx
08-06-2007 8:57 PM


Re: Arguments from science, not emotion
There ya go, exactly. So how does it work for homosexuals as it pertains to evolution? They are essentially, what, natures nanny? Come on, man. Think about what you're saying. Anastasia already pointed it out. You are speaking about natural selection in terms of it being a mindful entity.
Moreover, you aren't accounting for lesbians in the wild. What job do they have? I just see a lot of ad hoc reasons that, to you, sound mildly plausible. It seems that you'll just throw one out there in hopes that I'll bite.
No, he is "throwing out" an actual tested observation and suggested a possible reason for why we see such a thing occuring. It is hard to directly compare modern humans with their ape cousins when it comes to some behaviors, but other evidence (which I believe was shared previously) shows that in apes a "gay uncle" is a benefit to his sisters' progeny. In humans, however, it is not shown that "gay uncles" help out their sisters' kids any more than heterosexual uncles. This is due to the larger behavioral differences and free will, if you will, in humans, but an evolutionary role for early humans/hominids can be reasonably extrapolated.
Moreover, you aren't accounting for lesbians in the wild.
As I mentioned, not as much research has been done on this question. It is probable that the reasons for male and female homosexuality are quite different. This, however, does not negate the actual evidence we are discussing.
Because homosexuality has to do with SEX, Taz!
No, NJ, it doesn't. Just as being heterosexual isn't solely on the basis of sex. I was a lesbian before I ever had sex, before I had ever even kissed a woman. If I never have sex with another woman again, I will still be a homosexual. It is about attraction AND love AND sex. Not just sex.
That is the angle from which the moral argument derives. And there are only a few things that can copulate where contrasting them forces the relativist to crush his own argument by saying one is okay, but the others or not, for literally, no reason other than them having some personal objections to it.
Except relativists haven't been forced to crush their argument. You have simply ignored the reasons we give, mainly concerning consent. Feel free to keep on believing that, but don't proclaim victory where there is none.
I suppose I could use inanimate objects as a basis, but then there would be no moral argument.
Why not?
Which would be totally copacetic to me if it weren't for the fact a number of people (not sure if you were in that group) that said animal sexuality and human sexuality are different enough to where you can't draw any good conclusions from them by way of juxtaposition.
I believe it was just Rrhain that suggested that and I am still trying to make sense of his argument, but I believe he is correct in that there is nothing that homosexuals do that heterosexuals don't do (as a group). That is another argument, tho.
The reason, as I see it, that we can make the distinction is that bestiality involves humans and animals. When we study animal sexuality to compare it to human sexuality we are using animal-animal (within species) and human-human as isolated sets and only tentatively comparing the two different sets.
Furthermore, I doubt you will get a scientist to say that because a pair of flamingoes are "gay" that means that homosexuality in humans is biological. The only reasonable comparison would be our closer ape cousins, although we may look to other species to brainstorm testable ideas in human studies.
What I said is the acceptance of it comes from a liberal persuation.
Thank goodness for liberals, then.
As for gay ducks, cats, and donkeys, the problem is that you give these animals way too much leeway for understanding. If a dog has tried to copulate with another male dog, does it prove the dog is a homosexual, or does it simply prove the dog is sexual?
I've seen male dogs try to copulate with other male dogs, female dogs, cats, shoes, you name it. Does that also mean that dogs can be zoophiles if they attempt to copulate with animals of a different specie? These animals are driven by simple instinct. I think you give them far more mental credit than is warranted.
The problem is that you are only thinking of the sexual aspect of homosexuality. You need to disabuse yourself of this in order to really understand it.
The homosexuality observed in nature varies from exclusive pair bonds (where even when females are isolated with one of the males, they won't copulate) where the two actively raise or attempt to raise adopted or stolen young to early pair bonds in which the members later work together to attract mates to situational pair bonds and sexual behaviors(essentially forced on them through being isolated form females) to occasional acts of homosexual sex to purely "promiscuous" homosexual/bisexual behaviors.
The variation is much the same in humans - of both the heterossexual and homosexual persuasions.
Yeah, I butchered that sentence. Sorry. What I meant to say is, even supposing that homosexuality is perfectly normal within the animal kingdom, could they reasonably be construed as "weaker" in individual terms, as it relates to natural selection?
Only, possibly, if it is found that the genes have no other effect on the propagation of familial genes (for example on fecundity).
I only ask, because, being that procreation is so critical within the theory of evolution, how can natural selection favor them if they have effectively lost the natural will to procreate?
For the hundreth time, they HAVEN'T lost the natural will to procreate!!! Many homosexuals (and heterosexuals for that matter) CHOOSE not to procreate, but that is not at all the same. If you insist on repeating this assertion, please back it up with some evidence.
A cure? Can you provide data for me to review? I've never heard of this. But let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You aren't giving me a hypothetical situation, right? You are saying that researchers have actually "cured," (whatever that means), homosexuals within the animal kingdom?
Try not to get too excited, nem.
That information in the hands of the likes of you chills me to the bone. I can see the day (a la X-Men) where we are essentially forced to take this cure, after all, now it's a "choice," no? Scary shit and I hope it never comes to pass, but I am not all that optomistic.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-06-2007 8:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Taz, posted 08-07-2007 3:54 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024